=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1152/paper72
|storemode=property
|title=The Influence of Soil Conditions On Grain Quality of Spring Wheat
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1152/paper72.pdf
|volume=Vol-1152
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/haicta/SulekPM11
}}
==The Influence of Soil Conditions On Grain Quality of Spring Wheat==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1152/paper72.pdf
The influence of soil conditions on grain quality of spring
wheat
Alicja Sulek, Grazyna Podolska, Marzena Mikos
Department of Cereal Crop, Institute of Soil Science and Plant Cultivation-State Research
Institute, ul Czartoryskich 8, 24-100, Puławy, Poland
e-mail: aga@iung.pulawy.pl
Abstract. In years 2007-2008 field experiment with spring wheat was
conducted on the parcels (14 m 2) with 2m deep concrete walls, filled with six
different soils. The goal of this experiment was to evaluate the influence of soil
quality on yield and technological properties of spring wheat varieties. The
results of the conducted experiment showed that the highest level of spring
wheat yielding were obtained on the soils: good wheat (loess) and very good
(black earth). The lowest yields were obtained on defective wheat (limestone
soil) and good rye soil complex. Spring wheat grain quality was modified by
soil conditions. Grain obtained from the best complexes of soil (very good
wheat, alluvial soil) was characterized by lower protein and gluten content but
a higher 1000 grain weight which shows a better milling quality of grain when
harvested from the good soils.
Keywords: Spring wheat, soil, grain yield, protein content, gluten content,
sedimentation value.
1 Introduction
Grain yield and quality of spring wheat depends on genotype and is shaped by
habitat and agrotechnology (Budzyński, 2008, Goodling, 1998). Soil quality has the
strongest influence on crop yields among the habitat factors (Górski et al., 1999).
Wheat grown on lighter soil, particularly rye complex is characterized by low grain
accuracy, 1000 grain weight and hectoliter weight, particularly in years of low
precipitation, therefore, there is a concern that grain can be characterized by low
milling quality (Mazurek et al., 2001). Wheat grain quality was evaluated on the
basis of studies conducted in different localities in terms of habitat (soil, weather).
Therefore, it is difficult to assess to what extent the technological value of grain was
shaped by the weather factors, and to what extent by the soil conditions. The impact
of soil conditions on the grain quality should be determined under the same weather
conditions. This possibility exists in Pulawy, where more than 100 years ago large
plots were created and filled with soil typical for Polish conditions. This facility was
used to carrying out a strict experiment, the aim of which was to determine the
_____________________________
Copyright ©by the paper’s authors. Copying permitted only for private and academic purposes.
In: M. Salampasis, A. Matopoulos (eds.): Proceedings of the International Conference on Information
and Communication Technologies
for Sustainable Agri-production and Environment (HAICTA 2011), Skiathos, 8-11 September, 2011.
803
impact of soil conditions on grain yield, and also on the technological value of two
spring wheat varieties.
2 Material and Methods
The research material consisted of spring wheat varieties samples (Breeze and
Hewilla) from experiments conducted in 2007-2008. The plots with concrete walls
(area approx. 14 m2), were filled with six different soils (thickness 2 m), qualified for
the five complexes of the agricultural suitability of soils (Table 1). Recent chemical
analysis of soils are shown in Table 2. These soils had the natural profile and the
home ground without insulation. The experiment was a randomized block design
using three replications. Potassium and phosphorus fertilization was used before a
sowing term at the amount of 100 kg K 20 and 80 kg ha-1 P2O5 kg ha-1, respectively.
Nitrogen fertilization of 90 kg N · ha-1 was applied at two terms, 45 kg N kg ha-1
before the sowing term and 45 kg N · ha-1 during the shooting phase. Weeds were
removed manually. For each varieties, the 450 seeds per square meter were used.
Sowing was carried out on the 27th March and the 8th April, in 2007 and 2008,
respectively. Harvest was conducted at the stage of the full maturity: in 2007 – 30th
July and 2008 – 5th August. After harvesting, the grain yield was determined and an
assessment of selected parameters of the technology value was conducted. It included
the determination of 1000 grain weight, protein content by Kjeldahl method (N ·
5.75), the quantity and quality of gluten using Glutomatic System, and SDS
sedimentation value. Quantity and quality of wet gluten and dry gluten content were
determined using Glutomatic system (Perten, Germany) [ICC Standard no. 155].
Falling number value was determined using Falling Number apparatus [ISO 3093].
SDS sedimentation values of whole meal flour, 1000 Kernels Weight (TKW),
hectoliter weight were also determined.
The results in the system of randomized block design were analyzed statistically
using two-way variance analysis (ANOVA). The significance of differences was
assessed using Tukey's test at (P =0.05). Correlation coefficients were calculated
between soils properties and quality traits.
Table 1. Characteristics of soils
Plot Type and kind of soil Valu Soil suitability Index
number ation complex of quality
class
1 Black earth I Very good wheat complex 100
2 Brown alluvial soil II Good wheat complex 92
3 Brown soil developed III a Good wheat complex 83
from loess
4 Typical brown soil III b Very good rye complex 70
5 Limestone soil IV a Defective wheat complex 57
6 Typical brown soil IV b Good rye complex 42
804
Table 2. Chemical characteristics of soil. Chemical determination: pHKCl – potentiometric
method; P2O5 – colorimetric method; K2O – flame emission spectrometry; humus – Tiurin’s
method; Mg, Cu, Mn, Zn – atomic absorption spectrometry; B, Mo – plasma emission method
Character of Type and kind of soil
soils Black Brown Brown soil Typical Limestone Typical
earth alluvial developed brown soil soil brown soil
soil from loess
pHKCl 7,68 7,70 5,75 6,61 7,80 5,43
mg per 100 g of soil
P2O5 16,3 49,5 19,5 22,3 10,3 5,43
K2O 2,3 8,4 4,4 4,7 4,8 6,4
absorbed 2,7 5,4 2,9 8,5 1,6 1,8
Mg
Humus 3,38 1,16 1,00 1,18 1,50 1,27
content
%
content in mg/1 per kg soil
B 5,18 1,75 0,62 1,27 2,59 0,90
Cu 5,41 6,16 4,86 6,87 5,48 7,46
Mn 177 195 127 172 135 167
Mo <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 <0,05
Zn 47,0 72,4 49,6 36,5 102 31,9
3 Results
3.1 Grain yield
Weather conditions (Fig. 1) in the years of research had been different and had
modified both technological value and grain yield of spring wheat varieties (Table 3).
The year 2007 proved to be very detrimental to the yield of spring wheat. Large
deficits in soil moisture during the plant emergence, high temperatures and lack of
rainfall during the grain filling (Fig. 1) contributed to lower yields by 39% compared
to the year 2008. In 2007, Bryza wheat variety yielded about 6% higher compared to
Hewilla wheat variety. In 2007, significantly higher grain yield was obtained from
wheat grown on soil of good wheat complex (loess), the lowest on the defective
wheat complex (limestone soil). Grain yields obtained from soil of very good rye and
good rye complexes were at similar levels. In 2008, the highest grain yield was
obtained with good wheat complex (loess) and very good wheat (black earth), while
the yield was slightly lower on the good wheat complex (alluvial soil) and very good
rye complex. The lowest grain yield was obtained on the defective wheat complex
(limestone soil) (Table 3).
805
Table 3. Grain yield of spring wheat cultivars depending on soils conditions in the years
2006-2007. r.n. – not statistically significant difference
Soil suitability Grain yield [g m-2]
complex 2007 2008
Bryza Hewilla Średnio Bryza Hewilla Means
Very good what
612 600 602 890 907 899
complex
Good wheat
630 580 605 846 874 860
complex (brown
alluvial)
Good wheat
710 620 665 992 960 976
complex (loess)
Very good what
598 593 582 822 813 818
complex
Defective wheat
370 339 534 570 584 577
complex
Good rye
571 564 567 617 582 600
complex
Means
581 549 790 787
LSD α 0,05 51,89 88,4
soils 20,06 r.n
cultivars
Technological value
Technological value of spring wheat grain was dependent on the soil quality and
weather conditions during the research. There was no interaction of the tested
cultivars with soil conditions in determining the quality characteristics of grains, so
the paper presents averages for the varieties (Table 4, 5).
The 1000 grain weight was significantly dependent on soil quality and weather
conditions during the study (Table 4, 5). Moisture deficits in the soil and high air
temperatures occurred during the grain filling in 2007 (Fig. 1), which negatively
affected the formation of grains. Wheat gained significantly the highest 1000 grain
weight on good wheat complex (loess), the lowest on the defective wheat complex
(limestone soil). The difference was 28%. In 2008, with favorable weather conditions
for the wheat growing, the spring wheat grain was characterized by a higher 1000
grain weights with the average of 46.5 g (Table 4). The highest 1000 grain weight
gain was observed wheat grown on good wheat complex (alluvial soil), a very good
rye complex, good rye and good wheat complex (loess). Wheat grains derived from
the cultivation on defective wheat complex (limestone soil) were characterized by the
lowest 1000 grain weight.
Gluten content and gluten index were significantly dependent on the soil quality.
In 2007, gluten content ranged from 29.3 to 34.8%. Amount of eluted gluten was
significantly higher in the grains originating from the wheat cultivated on defective
wheat complex soil (limestone soil). The lowest amount of gluten was obtained from
wheat grains growing on the soil of very good wheat complex (black earth) and good
806
wheat (alluvial). The difference was 2.3% and 2.0%, respectively (Table 4). In 2008,
the highest gluten content was obtained from the grains originating from soil of good
rye complex. Indeed, the lowest gluten index was found in the grain from soil of very
good wheat (black earth) and defective wheat complex (limestone soil). This
difference amounted to 9.7% and 9.1%, respectively (tab.5).
Average total protein content in wheat grains in 2007 was 13.5% and it was higher
by 8.2% in comparison to the average protein content in 2008. In 2007 wheat grains
collected from the defective wheat complex (14.8%) and good rye complex (14.1%)
(limestone soil) had significantly highest protein content. The lowest protein content
in recorded in the grain of wheat cultivated on a very good wheat (black earth)
(12.5%) and good wheat complex (alluvial soil) (12.8%). In 2008 grain of wheat
cultivated on good rye complex was characterized by the highest protein content
(14.1%), while the lowest (11.8%) on the defective wheat (limestone soil) and good
wheat (alluvial soil) complexes. Grain of wheat which was cultivated on the soil of a
very good wheat (black earth), good wheat (loess) and very good rye wheat complex
was characterized by similar protein content.
Soil conditions had influence on SDS sedimentation value (Table 4, 5). The
highest SDS sedimentation value was observed in 2007 in grain of wheat grown on
defective wheat complex, very good rye and good rye complexes compared to SDS
sedimentation value of grain from the other types of soils. In 2008 SDS
sedimentation value was the highest in the grain originating from very good rye
complex soil, while the lowest from the defective wheat (limestone soil) and a good
rye complex soil. There was no significant difference in the value of this parameter
between soils representing wheat complexes.
The analysis of correlation (Table 6) shows a negative correlation between soil
quality and indicators of technological value of spring wheat grain. With an
improvement of the soil complex, there was a decrease in the parameters such as:
protein content, gluten content, SDS sedimentation value and gluten index. It was
found that gluten content is significantly correlated with protein content and SDS
sedimentation value. Gluten index is also correlates significantly with the
sedimentation value and the protein content showed a significant correlation with
SDS sedimentation value.
807
Fig.1. Precipitation and temperature during vegetation period in 2007-2008
Table 4. Grain quality traits depending on soil complex in 2007 years. r.n. – not statistically
significant difference
Experimental factors Grain quality traits
Glut Glut SDS Prote 1000
en en sedimentation in grain
content index value (cm3) content weights
(%) (% (g)
s.m.)
Very good wheat complex
29,3 48,2 62,4 12,5 41,5
Good wheat complex
(brown alluvial) 30,8 50,5 61,9 12,8 44,4
Good wheat complex
(loess) 32,8 52,3 61,4 13,2 45,0
Very good rye complex
31,8 70,6 67,1 13,4 423
Defective wheat complex
34,3 77,3 71,4 14,8 35,1
Good rye complex
32,8 72,4 69,3 14,1 43,9
LSD (α 0,05)
2,07 3,17 2,79 1,55 3,52
Bryza
32,0 66,0 65,0 13,6 40,3
Hewilla
31,9 51,6 66,1 13,3 43,6
LSD (α 0,05)
r.n 12,0 r.n r.n 3,33
2
808
Table5. Grain quality traits depending on soil complex in 2008 years
Experimental factors Grain quality traits
Glute Glute SDS Prote 1000
n n index sedimentation in grain
content value (cm3) content weights
(%) (% (g)
s.m.)
Very good wheat complex
27,8 71,6 65,5 12,0 45,5
Good wheat complex
(brown alluvial) 29,7 56,5 63,0 11,8 47,9
Good wheat complex
(loess) 31,0 49,5 63,0 12,4 46,9
Very good rye complex
31,8 58,2 68,0 12,6 47,5
Defective wheat complex
28,4 70,1 61,8 11,8 43,6
Good rye complex
37,5 46,5 70,3 14,1 47,3
LSD (α 0,05) 1,95 9,37 1,81 1,48 3,06
Bryza 31,4 62,3 65,6 12,4 45,7
Hewilla 30,6 56,8 64,9 12,4 46,8
LSD (α 0,05) r.n 4,02 r.n r.n r.n
Table 6. Correlation coefficients of grain quality parameters of spring wheat to soil
conditions (mean from 2007 – 2008). Level of significance* - p , 0,05
Parameters Soil Glute Glu SDS Protei 1000
s n ten sedimentation n content grain
quality content index value weights
Soils quality x
Gluten content - x
0,675*
Gluten index - - x
0,320* 0,145
Sedimentation - 0,618 0,2 x
value 0,627* * 95*
Protein content - 0,797 0,0 0,631* x
0,592* * 95
1000 grain 0,0 0,145 - -0,058 -0,007 x
weights 65 0,178
4 Discussion
Spring wheat has very high soil requirements. Studies (Sułek, 2001, Sułek et
al., 2009) suggest that the issue of wheat grain yield requires a high soil concise,
809
well-sustained water complexes belonging to the very good and good wheat
complex. The presented research confirms that spring wheat had the highest yield on
good wheat complex (loess), while the lowest grain yield was found on soil of
defective wheat complex (limestone soil) and good wheat complex. In the studies
conducted by Sulek and Filipiak (Sułek et al., 2009) the difference in grain yield
between wheat (very good and good) and the good rye complexes was 24.0%. In the
present study the difference was at a similar level.
It is important to determine the total protein content and gluten content
while assessing the quality of wheat. In the present study, the soil quality and
weather conditions in the wheat ripening period differentiated the protein content and
gluten content in spring wheat grains. The year 2007, in which high temperatures and
lack of rainfall were recorded at the ripening period, was more favorable for storing
protein. Other authors (Daniel et al., 1998a, Daniel et al., 1998b, Stankowski et al.,
2001) emphasize that the most favorable weather for the formation of large amounts
of protein is that with moderate rainfall and high air temperature The presented
studies show that the highest amount of protein was accumulated in the grains
growing on the soil of good wheat complex (2007 and 2008). In the 2007 the lowest
amount of protein was accumulated in wheat grains grown on defective wheat
complex in 2007. Research conducted by Podolska (Podolska et al., 2005) with
winter wheat showed no impact of the soil complex on protein content. Studies of
Kuś and et al. (Kuś et al., 1999) indicate that winter wheat grown on soils with a
greater abundance of humus (black earth and alluvial soil) are distinguished by
greater amounts of protein and gluten than wheat grown on the soil of loamy sand
granulometric composition (good rye complex). Research conducted by Sulek and
Filipiak (Sułek et al., 2009) showed, however, that the wheat grain grown on good
rye complex was characterized by a protein content higher by 1.7% in reference to
wheat grown on the soil of a very good wheat complex.
SDS sedimentation value characterizes the gluten quality and quantity, which
determines the suitability of varieties for baking purposes. The study indicates that
this parameter was dependent on the soil quality. In 2007, grain had the highest SDS
sedimentation value from wheat grown on rye and defective wheat complexes
(limestone soil), while in 2008 on the very good wheat and wheat defective
complexes. According to the research conducted by Sulek and Filipiak, Filipiak and
Podolska (Sułek et al., 2009, Podolska et al., 2009), Nowak and et al. (Nowak et al.,
2004) the grain from the very good wheat complex was characterized by the highest
SDS sedimentation value. However, the studies conducted by Podolska and et al.
(Podolska et al., 2005) showed that there were no significant differences in SDS
sedimentation value with the deterioration of the soil complex.
The results indicate a significant negative correlation between soil conditions, and
grain quality parameters. Research conducted by Podolska and et al. (Mazurek et al.,
2001) with winter wheat showed that soil conditions have a little influence on the
baking quality of wheat. They affect the milling value, which is indirectly confirmed
by this study.
810
5 Conclusion
1. Spring wheat grown on soil of good wheat, very good wheat, good wheat
(alluvial soil) and very good rye complexes had the highest grain yield, whereas
significantly lowest grain yield was detected on defective wheat (limestone soil) and
a good rye complexes.
2. Soil conditions modified the quality parameters of spring wheat grains. Grain
of wheat grown on soils belonging to the best soil complexes (very good wheat - the
black earth and good wheat - alluvial) accumulated the lowest amounts of protein and
gluten, and exhibited the highest 1000 grain weight.
3. Further research, on the influence of soil conditions on yield and grain quality,
expanded over longer period of time (more than two years) is of high interest. We
speculated that the stability of both; yield and yield quality is higher on good quality
soils; however additional experiments should be performed to confirm that
hypothesis. Moreover, the future investigations should include the determination of
the protein content as well as the dough quality and baking properties.
6 Reference list
7 Budzyński W. (2008) Wpływ nawożenia azotem na jakość technologiczną
ziarna pszenicy ozimej. Fragm. Agron. 1, p. 37-49.
8 Daniel C., Tribol E., Le Blevence L., Olliver J. (1998a) Effects of
temperature and nitrogen nutrition on protein composition of winter wheat:
effect of gliadin composition. Short Communications Fifth Congress ESA 1,
p. 247-248.
9 Daniel C., Tribol E., Le Blevence L., Olliver J. (1998b) Effects of
temperature and nitrogen nutrition on protein composition of winter wheat:
effect of gliadin composition. Short Communications Fifth Congress ESA,
1, p. 249-250.
10 Gooodling M. Smith G.P. (1998) The potential to use climate, variety and
nitrogen relationship to optimize wheat quality. Short Communications Fifth
Congres ESA, 1, p. 229-230
11 Górski T., Krasowicz S., Kuś J. (1999) Glebowo-klimatyczny potencjał
Polski produkcji zbóż. Pam. Puławski, 114, p. 127-142.
12 Kuś J., Kamińska M., Mróz A. (1999) Plonowanie pszenicy ozimej na
glebach o różnej przydatności rolniczej. Pam. Puławski, 118, p. 241 – 248.
13 Mazurek J., Sułek A. (1996) Plonowanie pszenicy jarej na różnych glebach
w zależności od gęstości siewu. Pam. Puławski,. 107, p. 5-13.
14 Nowak W., Zbroszczyk T., Kotowicz L. (2004) Wpływ intensywności
uprawy na niektóre cechy jakościowe ziarna odmian pszenicy. Pam.
Puławski, 135, p. 199 – 212.
811
15 Podolska G., Stankowski S., Podolski B. (2005) Plonowanie i wartość
technologiczna ziarna pszenicy w zależności od warunków glebowych.
Pam. Puławski, 139, p. 188-197.
16 Podolska G., Filipiak K. (2009) Wpływ warunków siedliska na poziom i
jakość ziarna pszenicy ozimej. Cz. II Wpływ warunków glebowych. Zesz.
Probl. Post. Nauk Roln., 542, p. 397-402.
17 Stankowski S., Rutkowska A. (2006) Kształtowanie się cech jakościowych
ziarna i mąki pszenicy ozimej w zależności od dawki i terminu stosowania
nawożenia azotem. Acta. Sci. Pol., Agricultura, 5(1), p. 53-61.
18 Sułek A. (2001) Wpływ gęstości siewu na architekturę łanu pszenicy jarej
Sigma uprawianej na różnych glebach. Biul., IHAR, 220, p. 69-79.
19 Sułek A., Filipiak K. (2009) Plonowanie i cechy jakościowe ziarna pszenicy
jarej w rejonie południowo-. wschodnim. Zesz. Probl. Post. Nauk Roln.,
542, p. 71 – 77.
812